Rock v. Enfants Riches Deprimes, LLC

Background

Mick Rock sued Enfants Riches Deprimes, LLC, and other defendants under the Copyright Act, alleging that a photograph was used on clothing and other merchandise without a license. The court previously granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Rock’s claim without prejudice because Rock had not shown that the photograph itself was registered with the Copyright Office. The registration Rock cited covered a book that included the photograph but excluded the photograph from the registration.

The court later awarded the defendants $100,008.13 in attorneys’ fees and sanctioned Rock’s counsel, Richard Liebowitz, and his law firm, Leibowitz Law Firm PLLC, $10,000. Rock moved for reconsideration of that fee and sanctions order.

Reconsideration standard

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy granted sparingly. It generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not an opportunity to repeat rejected arguments or present new arguments that could have been raised earlier.

Prevailing-party status

Rock argued that the defendants could not be considered the prevailing parties because the copyright claim had been dismissed without prejudice. The court rejected that argument. It held that the summary-judgment order materially altered the legal relationship between the parties because Rock’s lack of a valid registration undermined the legal foundation of his claim and prevented him from bringing the same claim in federal court at that time.

The court stated that a defendant need not obtain a merits judgment to be a prevailing party. Although Rock could apply for a new registration and bring a new infringement suit based on that registration, that possibility did not change the defendants’ prevailing-party status in this case.

Sanctions and bad faith

Rock’s counsel argued that the evidence did not support a finding of bad faith and that reliance on the earlier registration was, at most, poor legal judgment. The court disagreed. It found that the conduct in this case—including failing to investigate the complaint’s evidentiary basis, obstructing discovery, failing to comply with a magistrate judge’s orders, misleading the court, and making meritless arguments—supported the sanctions. The court emphasized that the sanctions were based on counsel’s conduct in this case, not on conduct in other cases.

Later registration and request to reopen

The Copyright Office later issued a registration for the photograph, effective May 1, 2019. Rock then filed a new copyright action against Enfants Riches Deprimes, LLC, in the Central District of California. Rock argued that the later registration eliminated the defendants’ prevailing-party status and asked the court to reopen this case or certify a related action.

The court rejected that request. Rock applied for the registration more than two years after beginning this case, after discovery had ended, and after the court had entered final judgment and terminated the case. The court found no authority allowing a later registration to retroactively remove the defendants’ prevailing-party status. It also distinguished an earlier case in which reopening was allowed because the plaintiff sought to amend within the time allowed after a motion to dismiss and had applied for registration before filing suit.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Rock’s motion for reconsideration. The court also declined to reopen the terminated case and found that awarding the defendants additional attorneys’ fees and costs for the reconsideration motion was not appropriate.